Sony's Grover Crisp understands the science and art of film restoration as well as anyone working in Hollywood today. As the Senior VP for Asset Management, Film Restoration and Digital Mastering for Sony Pictures Entertainment, he's personally supervised scores of great film restoration efforts for the studio - both physical and digital - including such classics as The Bridge on the River Kwai and Jason and the Argonauts.

Most recently, Crisp and his team have completed an effort to restore and preserve director Martin Scorsese's acclaimed 1976 drama Taxi Driver. The result of that work will be released on Blu-ray Disc by Sony on April 5th. We've long admired his work here at The Digital Bits, and we're very pleased to say that Crisp has been kind enough to answer some questions for us about the Taxi Driver restoration effort. We hope you enjoy it!

---

Q: Has Taxi Driver actually been fully restored and remastered, or just re-transferred in high-definition?

A: This film was not just transferred in High Definition. Not that many films have gone through this particular process and this is only the third one for us, after Dr. Strangelove and The Bridge on the River Kwai, though others are already in the works. By process, I mean a full 4K workflow with no downrezing. Especially scanning at 4K, it preserves the essential resolution of the 35mm negative. The resulting HD master used for the Blu-ray authoring was derived directly from the final 4K files.

Q: You mentioned 4K - when talking about film restoration in the digital space, much attention is paid to the resolution involved. Given the need to balance budget, quality and future archival needs, how do you decide which resolution - 2K, 4K, even 6K and higher - is the optimal one in which to work for any given film? What considerations made 4K the right choice for Taxi Driver?

A: We have really looked at all the options over the last few years and our conclusion, which is not unique to us, of course, is that film, regardless of what the particular element is, needs to be scanned at 4K at a minimum. That's why Colorworks at the studio, where all of the Taxi Driver work eventually came together, was built as a full 4K digital facility. If you look at some of the tests available, especially those published by Arri the last couple of years, you realize what is being lost by scanning at a lower resolution for 35mm film. Plus, the concept of oversampling comes into play. So, we scan all our 35mm material, whether it is a big restoration or just a re-mastering project for Blu-ray, at 4K. But, depending on the material you are working with, it may be beneficial to actually scan at even higher resolutions, while larger formats, like 65mm, may require higher resolutions in order to accurately capture the information in the film frame.

Q: What was the most difficult aspect of working digitally at a 4K resolution?

A: Working in 4K data can be a challenge because it is a lot of data to manipulate, but it is something that can be controlled. The most difficult part of any of this kind of work is always to fix things that could not be fixed before and to have it be seamless. A digital repair done incorrectly will draw attention to itself and the goal is always to put things back properly so that it is virtually invisible to the viewer. Sometimes, the nature of the film problems are so severe as to make this practically impossible, but at least that is always the goal.

Q: Were director Martin Scorsese or cinematographer Michael Chapman involved in the restoration? Can you talk about the extent of Scorsese's involvement?

A: Yes, they were both involved, at different times, during the work. Whenever we work on a restoration we involve the filmmakers, if it is at all possible, especially the cinematographer and director. We would not work on this without Scorsese's input, of course. We ran the original 4K samples by him and had follow-up discussions and viewings. He was very much interested in this film looking like it really is, a product of the time and place in which it was made. We were trying to be careful to present it as it would have looked in 1976, albeit with a much cleaner and fuller image than one would have experienced from third generation release prints of the time. That is one reason why the Columbia lady logo at the beginning of the film is degraded and soft looking, because that is exactly what it was in 1976, and we agreed with the director on those kinds of decisions.

Q: Given that Scorsese is such a champion of film restoration and preservation, was he surprised at how much work was required to properly restore Taxi Driver? What was his reaction upon seeing the finished work?

A: Well, he is not just a champion of the work, he actually gets seriously involved in many of the projects that The Film Foundation works on. So, he has a really great background at this point in terms of the issues involved, solutions available and so forth. He's pretty savvy when it comes to understanding how films from different periods, and at different studios, may have been treated and what to expect. With Taxi Driver, of course, it was not a project of The Film Foundation and was completely funded by Sony Pictures and overseen by me. With that in mind, he was pretty much treated like we would any artist in that we wanted his involvement and input so that we (hopefully) get it right. His comments back to us were quite insightful and valuable, and he seemed to like the ultimate results, though I certainly can't answer on his behalf.

Q: What was the biggest technical challenge you faced in restoring this film and preparing it for release on Blu-ray?

A: There were enormous scratches running through some scenes that were difficult to remove. It almost never fails that when a film is scratched, it is right down the middle of a character's face - never way over to the side of the frame as you would hope. So, those kinds of things are difficult to achieve without altering the underlying structure of the emulsion. This film had several things like that wrong with it. Thousands of instances of minus density dirt specs were embedded in the emulsion of the negative, some of which can be removed easily and most not. We also found that the film had lost frames in several places over the years and discovered that there were long ago efforts to take care of torn frames by just cutting them out. We located the torn frames, reinserted them and digitally repaired the frames. A common approach years ago to issues like that was to just remove the damaged frames and pull up the audio to match it and, basically, unless you knew the film really well, you would not necessarily notice this. But, it was surprising with this film how much of that was done.

Q: Is there a particular instance in Taxi Driver that benefited the most from this recent restoration?

A: The scratches and tears to the original negative - damage that could not be fixed through a traditional film laboratory approach. Working in an all digital workflow, it allows us to get to very minute particles of dirt or abrasions, as well as long stretches of film that can be difficult to repair. A lot of work on a film like this is done one frame at a time by individuals sitting looking at images on their digital restoration workstations.

Q: Some older films that have been re-mastered for Blu-ray have generated controversy because of changes to the way they were released previously, especially where color is concerned. Were similar changes made on Taxi Driver?

A: I can't speak about the other films. For Taxi Driver, what I can say is that I think this upcoming release is the most authentic to the way the film looked when it was originally released. Previous releases on DVD were from an older transfer, about ten years ago, that was not subject to the supervision that we insist on and did not involve the filmmakers as we do now. We researched and based decisions on prints from the original negative and release, plus had the cinematographer and director involved in each phase of work. So, the film looks the way they see it, especially from the director's perspective.

Q: Much has been made of the decision to alter the color of the shooting scene at the end of the film to get an R rating in 1976. Why didn't you restore it to the originally-shot, more colorful scene?

A: There are a couple of answers to this. One, which we discussed, was the goal of presenting the film as it was released, which is the version everyone basically knows. This comes up every now and then, but the director feels it best to leave the film as it is. That decision is fine with me. However, there is an impression from some who think we could easily "pump" the color back into that scene and that is not as easy as it sounds. The film was not just printed darker, or with muted colors, as some think. There are two sections of the original negative that were removed from the cut and assembled camera negative. One is the long shot where the cab pulls up, Bickle walks over to Sport, they argue, he shoots him, then he walks back and sits on a stoop. That is all one shot that was removed. The second section removed begins with the shot of the interior of the apartment building where he shoots the hood in the hand and all the shots following this down to the final one of the overhead crowd shot outside - that entire sequence was removed as assembled. These two sections of original camera negative were then sent to TVC, a small lab in New York, where it went through a Chemtone process, a chemical treatment that somewhat opens shadows allowing for greater density and lower contrast, for the most part. The exact process was a bit clouded by TVC as a proprietary service, but it usually involved original processing and, at this point, the negative was already finished. Whatever the actual processes, what I can say is that they delivered back duplicate negatives of these two sections, with the long sequence, in effect, now an optical dupe and with the desired color and density built into it. So, literally, when printing this film at a lab then (or now), there was no way to grade it and print it the way it was shot. Those muted colors are built into the dupe negative and it doesn't work to try to print it otherwise. We also searched many times over the years for the original negative that was removed, but to no avail. Likely, it was junked at TVC at the time.

Q: What about for the Blu-ray - couldn't you just re-do the color with today's technology?

A: No, the same situation exists in that environment. You can't really successfully pump a color into a film that isn't there. There were attempts, to some degree, to put more red into that scene on older transfers of the film (the most recent almost ten years ago, and without talent involvement) and you can see those results in DVDs that were released. There is more red than should be there, but the red is everywhere, in the walls, clothing, skin, hair, etc., and that is what happens when you try to force a color into an image that really isn't present. This Blu-ray release is actually closer to what it looked like in 1976 than any previous home video release, and not just for the color. The well-know "you talkin' to me" scene, for example, was seriously cropped on older editions. All those shots are actually from the camera looking at his reflection in the mirror, not straight on of him while he talks, and they cropped out the side of the mirror and zoomed in to the point where he had slightly more headroom, but you could barely see the gun he's holding. We don't agree with that kind of framing manipulation, so we framed it properly for 1.85 SMPTE standards for projection and now you will see the image as you would in a theater, which is the way it should be.

Q: Was the Blu-ray release part of the reason why Taxi Driver has been restored at this time?

A: It was a factor, of course, but at Sony Pictures we have had a long-term plan of restoring our library so that it can be made available and also preserved for the future. These films are coming out on Blu-ray and many more are planned. This film, for example, is getting a major re-release (major by older title standards, that is) at AMC theaters around the country that are equipped to project 4K DCPs, and I don't recall a such a wide release like that before, relatively speaking.

Q: In general, how much has the advent of Blu-ray affected the film restoration process?

A: Blu-ray is a wonderful format that allows the viewer to experience a film much closer to what the theatrical experience is like. The higher resolution in both picture and sound also means that we need to provide the best quality materials in order for the format to work at its maximum. What this means for restoration is that we can now work to provide better materials than would have been necessary in the past. Blu-ray and restoration really go hand-in-hand in that regard.

Q: So much is made these days of the use of grain or "noise" reduction in Blu-ray masters. It's a complicated topic, frankly, that I think is not well understood by most Blu-ray consumers and film enthusiasts. Sometimes the process is used to achieve a "cleaner" look in a catalog film presentation, and often it's used simply to aid in compression. What's your perspective on the issue, and how does it apply to your work on Taxi Driver and other Sony titles?

A: I think our scanning rates and workflow processes have somewhat ameliorated the issue of graininess. Having said that, though, we don't take the position that grain is an automatic "problem", and we usually just leave it alone. We are aware of all the tools for this and are open to testing them, but the use of such tools should be limited and spare. Ultimately, unless there is a really compelling reason to alter the grain (and I don't think just to aid compression is a compelling reason), we don't, and I can't really see that that decision has hurt us when it comes to reviews of our Blu-ray releases. Just the opposite, it seems. I think there are ways of mastering a film that enables you to make the best of what you have to work with and we follow that path. I really do not like the super clean, waxy look that is often the result of over-processing. It not only buries detail, but it gives the film an odd feel to it, an artificial feel, that I think detracts from the achievement of the filmmakers and is distracting to discerning viewers, all of which ultimately just cheats the audience. Most filmmakers know what they are doing with the resources at hand and our job, after all, is to replicate the vision of the filmmaker, not to impose our own aesthetic outlook on a film. People are entitled to their opinion on this subject, and lots of people have opinions on this, but we try to take a fairly authentic and neutral approach to every title - and they all differ in certain ways - so that each title looks, feels, sounds, like a product of its time and place, while trying to make them look their absolute best on Blu-ray. And, that's kind of what it's about, you know? I don't think Taxi Driver is a particularly grainy film, so there was really nothing to do in that regard.

Q: What is the downside to digital restoration, if any?

A: There can be a downside to just about any process when it comes to anything digital. Anyone one who has ever had a hard drive crash will understand that. But I think the main thing to be careful about with digital restoration - which we have been involved with at Sony Pictures for the last 20 years - is just that: to be careful. Digital tools are quite powerful and we need to be careful that we are controlling these processes and not let them control us.

Q: Can you talk about the audio restoration process for Taxi Driver? Were there any unique challenges involved on the audio side of the effort?

A: The audio restoration was completed at Chace Audio by Deluxe in Burbank, which is a restoration facility that has worked on many titles for all the studios over the years. Like with all other aspects of a restoration project, we treat the audio much as we do picture in that we plow through everything we have to come up with the best material to work from. That could be one element or more, or a mix and match of various components of different elements. For this, the best was the original mono magnetic master with split dialogue, effects and music. However, I had found years earlier the original 4-track stereo recordings of the score, on audio tape, not magnetic film, so that was incorporated into the process, all of the material going through a standard digital cleanup to remove pops, clicks, distortion when possible, things like that. In this particular case, Scorsese had his own audio experts create the 5.1 track from the restored elements that will be on the Blu-ray, created here at the Sony Studios Sound department.

Q: You mentioned earlier that Taxi Driver is also being released in select theaters in 4K. Do you think the 4K presentation will change the Taxi Driver experience for the audience in any way?

A: Digital presentations of any film are always different in experience from a film print. The image is steady, there is no variation in color from projector to projector, no scratches or changeover cues in the upper corner of the frame, no jumping in the gate. To me, lessening the anomalies inherent in the film projection experience allows one get more involved in the drama of the story. And this is from someone who loves so see film on film! This is why we take great pains to try and have our digital versions of films truly look like film.

Q: Can you talk about other classic film restorations from Sony that you're working on? What else is coming for theatrical revival and Blu-ray release? We're thinking of titles like Lawrence of Arabia, On the Waterfront and From Here to Eternity. We'd heard that the Lawrence restoration has already been completed...

A: Actually, Lawrence is not completed, yet, though we have begun work on it. It is a complicated project and will certainly take a year to complete. The 8K scans of the negative are done, so we are at least headed down that road. The Caine Mutiny is in the works, as is Guns of Navarone. We recently released a major restoration of The Bridge on the River Kwai, both theatrically and on Blu-ray, and it has been very well received. The other classic titles will find their way out to Blu-ray and I think it is just a matter of finding the right time to schedule those.

---

Special thanks to Grover Crisp for his time, and everyone at Sony Pictures Entertainment who was involved in the Taxi Driver restoration effort. Don't forget, the film will be released for the first time on Blu-ray Disc on April 4th (you can see the cover art below). Cheers!

When Lionsgate recently announced their new 3-disc Full Disclosure Blu-ray Edition of Francis Ford Coppola's legendary Vietnam War film, Apocalypse Now, the news seemed almost too good to be true for longtime fans. The set, which streets on 10/19, is due to include both versions of the film, many hours of bonus features and, at long last, the infamous Hearts of Darkness documentary – the first time the film and documentary have ever been presented together on disc. It also includes – for the first time in ANY home format – both versions of the film in their original 2.35:1 theatrical aspect ratio. Given the film's complex history, and the equally complicated history of its past home video editions, fans of Apocalypse Now immediately began to have questions about the Blu-ray release, and quickly began to speculate about the release online. How would the new transfer compare to the 2001 release? How involved were Coppola and cinematographer Vittorio Storaro in preparing the new transfer? What surprises might the new edition bring?

To answer some of these questions, the production team at Lionsgate Home Entertainment and Coppola's American Zoetrope were kind enough to talk with The Digital Bits for nearly an hour last week. Participating were Lionsgate's Senior VP of DVD and Blu-ray Production, Miguel Casillas, and Zoetrope film archivist James Mockoski (who supervised the new restoration of the film), along with colorist Doug Delaney and Jay Miracle, the editor of the Hearts of Darkness documentary (he also worked on the original Apocalypse Now). What follows is a transcript of that conversation. We hope you'll enjoy it!

---

Bill Hunt (The Digital Bits): We might as well start off right away by talking about the issue that – I don't know if controversial is the right word, but it's certainly the most talked about issue related to the home video releases of Apocalypse Now, which is the aspect ratio. All of the previous DVD versions have presented the film in the 2.00:1 aspect ratio preferred by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro. On the other hand, the film was originally shot and presented theatrically in the 2.35:1 ratio. So how was the decision made to go 2.35 at long last for this Blu-ray release?

James Mockoski (American Zoetrope): This is a decision that Francis and Vittorio made together back in 2001 – to offer the 2.00:1. Francis very much supported – and still supports – Vittorio's vision of 2:1. It's not just a widescreen issue. It's well publicized on Vittorio's website how he thinks film should be presented. It goes back to Leonardo da Vinci, and he has a whole philosophy about looking at artwork in 2:1. Honestly, if we could, we would have included a 2:1 version on the Blu-ray along with the 2.35:1. Of course, people have wanted the 2.35:1, so we wanted to include that, but we don't discount what Vittorio did either. And we had a long discussion with Lionsgate about how we could do both. But Francis has certain specifications about this release that he wanted. One of the criticisms of the last release was that the film was broken up over two discs. So this time, we wanted to offer both Redux and the original cut on one disc. That meant [for disc space reasons] we had to choose: 2.35 or 2:1. We just couldn't have both, which Francis wanted. So we chose 2.35 because it was the original aspect ratio of the film.

Bill Hunt: It's fascinating to me that there's a completely valid artistic argument to be made for both aspect ratios. It wasn't just some arbitrary decision to go 2:1 originally.

James Mockoski: I know. Miguel and I talked for hours about this. Vittorio would still argue that 2:1 is a valid thing to do for widescreen presentation. He has a whole philosophy about how people view films, and he feels that 2:1 gives them the best presentation of a film.

Miguel Casillas (Lionsgate): And James, I think we had also spoken at one point about the whole advent of a 16x9, widescreen monitor world, which might not have been as prevalent back in 2001 but certainly is now. If you believe in the philosophy that Blu-ray offers the best verbatim reproduction of a theatrical experience, then that's one advantage of doing the 2.35 on the Blu-ray, along with the fact that it hadn't been done before. And if you could hearken back to how audiences would have seen Apocalypse Now back in 1979, it would have been in this visual presentation.

Bill Hunt: Certainly, judging by the feedback of the film's fans, 2:35 is definitely what they've wanted to see for a long time. On the subject of the visual presentation, can you guys talk about the new transfers of the films? Specifically, the restoration work that was involved in creating the Blu-ray master, and what might be different or improved from 2001 to now?

James Mockoski: Sure, I can walk you through the steps of how we got it to mastering, and Doug can talk about the color. We chose the inter-positive of Apocalypse Now Redux and had it transferred at 4K. That gave us the best quality to start with, because the original negative had suffered damage over the years. And Doug and iO Films had it down converted to 2K so they could work in color.

Bill Hunt: Now, I know that the original elements for the theatrical cut were essentially taken apart and repurposed for Redux, so how was that version handled?

James Mockoski: Basically, for Redux, about 45 minutes of footage was added, in addition to the theatrical cut. There's a slight difference in edits, but basically it was just an insertion of additional footage in 2001. So the theatrical cut of Apocalypse Now is there in the I.P. of Redux. So we took the I.P. transfer and, using seamless branching on Blu-ray, it just skips over the added footage to present the 1979 cut.

Bill Hunt: So both versions are sourced from the same 4K transfer.

James Mockoski: Yes.

Comparison of the 2001 I.P. (top) and 2010 Blu-ray master (bottom).

Bill Hunt: Looking at the screenshot comparisons you guys provided between the 2001 master and the new 2010 master, there's a marked difference in the color-timing. Color seems more vibrant now, and contrasts are bolder. Can you talk about that? How those decisions were made and what the differences might be?

Doug Delaney: Sure, I can touch on that and James can chime in. One of the original conversations we began to have when we started looking at doing this work, was using the original transfer in 2001 as a reference – as indicative of the best possible transfer at the time, using that technology, and with a lot of time spent with Vittorio on that original transfer. We also screened – myself, James and Mr. Coppola – the dye-transfer print as well. And we wanted to get back to that in terms of not just aspect ratio, but the contrast and color saturation characteristics of a dye-transfer print in terms of its natural rendition – to be a little bit more, I guess, faithful to that original projection of that dye-transfer print. To get to that point, there was a little bit of negotiation between using both sources as inspiration, I guess is the best way I could put it, between that beautiful dye-transfer print Mr. Coppola had as well as honoring the time and quality of the transfer in '01 that obviously had Vittorio's time put into it. Some scenes tended to carry over very well with regard to the two transfers, and some scenes felt more akin to the dye-transfer print.

Bill Hunt: So in other words, the goal was to get as close to that original dye-transfer presentation as possible, but still have it informed by Francis and Vittorio's 2001 work and the improvements over time.

Doug Delaney: Yes, I say that's it.

James Mockoski: You know, Vittorio has always been a lover of Technicolor. And what Redux allowed us to do in 2001 was, Technicolor brought back the machine and installed it – that replicated that Technicolor process. I think Bulworth was the first film off that machine, and Redux was the second. But it allowed Vittorio to have that great saturation of colors and deep, deep blacks that Francis and Vittorio just love. You do lose a little bit of that in the [2001] D5 transfer, but now we at least can get closer to that original Technicolor look that they wanted to have.

Doug Delaney: So certainly, you'll see some of these scenes that have this very rich black – the sort of inky quality that you get from a dye-transfer print that is difficult to reproduce otherwise. And it creates a very sort of bold contrast image, yet has a more natural, filmic feel.

Bill Hunt: Given the way film stocks can age and fade over time, is there any thought given to the notion that this new master – this presentation has an archival purpose? That it becomes a lasting reference document to what the film should look like?

James Mockoski: Well, that's another conversation we've had. We had hoped that the [2001] D5 was that end all, because of the work put into it and the input everyone had. But who knows in 20 years? Fortunately, the Technicolor print is a more preservation medium in terms of keeping a good record of color, with the separation. So yes, we would like to think today that this is the definitive record. But we'd probably get burned if we said this is it. (laughs) Technology will come along in another 20 years and suddenly you've got to do a 12K scan next.

Bill Hunt: It's always been amazing to me how much – even over the space of a year or two – the state of the art in mastering can evolve and improve.

James Mockoski: (laughs) And yet Francis and Vittorio are doing interviews saying, "This is it."

Bill Hunt: I guess the important thing to note is that Francis and Vittorio were involved and made the decisions regarding this new presentation – Vittorio, I suppose you could say, in the form of the 2001 presentation, which contains his visual notes on color.

James Mockoski: Yes. Francis primarily was responsible for this restoration, with Vittorio's blessing of the print that he deposited in 2001.

Bill Hunt: While we're talking about the restoration, let's touch on the clean-up work that was done to the Redux and 1979 version...

James Mockoski: If you did a side-by-side, and you looked at the D5 back in 2001 – and Doug can speak on this too – it looked beautiful then. But during this new HD version, there's a lot of stuff you see that you didn't see in the D5, when you do a side-by-side comparison with the 4K. There was a lot of dirt and scratches. So we spent a lot of time cleaning up the film. So yes, we were very happy back in 2001, but now with the Blu-ray, it looks even better. But Francis... as we were sitting in the room with Doug... we'd be calling attention to a hair in the gate, and Francis would say, "You know... this film is made by humans. Yes, there was a hair in the gate back in '79. I'm not going to be worried about that." Because it just reminds us of the effort it took to get this film to the screen. We could spend countless hours cleaning, but we didn't want to strip away that hands-on aspect of it. So occasionally, if there was a hair in the gate and it was minor, we left it.

Bill Hunt: I think that will be comforting to the serious fans of the film, because one of the issues that's come up with Blu-ray is: Just how 'perfect' should older films look in high-definition? Apocalypse Now isn't supposed to look like Avatar. It shouldn't look like that – it was never meant to.

Doug Delaney: Yeah, that was one of the earlier discussions we had in terms of color correction and digital restoration – the issue of the 'modernization' of a film like this. We wanted to allow it to be a film. Certainly, our technical standards have changed over the years, and the viewers' standards have changed in terms of the education and home theatre quality. But all that being said, how far did we want to go with the restoration? We didn't want to cross that line of modernizing a seminal piece of American cinema. We wanted to retain that dye-transfer, filmic contrast and the deep blacks – we didn't want to leverage all of the digital technology to make it something as if it was shot on an HD camera today. We could have spent hours and hours and hours taking out ever single piece of dirt, but that wasn't the goal. We worked hard to find the right balance.

Comparison of the 2001 I.P. (top) and 2010 Blu-ray master (bottom).

James Mockoski: For us, you know, some of those things – that's the feeling of a film.

Doug Delaney: Some of the difference too [in what you'll see on the Blu-ray] is just the improvement in transfer technology itself from 2001 to 2010. The source now – coming from a 4K scan – has so much more detail. There wasn't a lot of enhancement needed. That one of the other things you can see from the [comparison] stills – the clarity and sharpness and texture that remains through that process but is not overly enhanced.

Bill Hunt: Now, moving on to the other content of this release, one of the most exciting aspects of it is that the Hearts of Darkness documentary is being included with the film for the first time. And I understand that it's also in high-definition. How did that come to happen?

James Mockoski: Jay Miracle helped us on that. He did the color timing of that over at iO Films as well. It was also transferred from the I.P. in HD and they worked from there.

Bill Hunt: The documentary was originally shot in 16mm, was it not?

James Mockoski: Yes and no. All of Eleanor's footage was shot 16mm, but they blew that up to 35. Jay, you know more about that process...

Jay Miracle: Yeah, all of that was 16. What was amazing to me is that you all did an incredible job. Even that original footage – it just looks pristine. It was incredible. I was really blown away at how good everything looks - at the quality of the transfer.

James Mockoski: Basically, that material was left in the vault for 20 years. So it was in very good shape. The only thing – we had a laserdisc and a VHS made back in the 90s. So very little had been done on the title. And what you saw on the 2007 DVD release was a Digibeta that was made off a 1-inch source.

Bill Hunt: So it would be fair to say that few people have ever seen the documentary looking as good as it will on the Blu-ray?

James Mockoski: Yes. And the 3 or 4 prints that are out there in circulation are really faded. So people will have not seen Hearts of Darkness looking as good as this.

Bill Hunt: Let's talk about the other extras that will be on the Blu-ray. And Miguel, you can probably address some of that. Looking at the spec list, it looks very much like everything of consequence from the previous Complete Dossier DVD release is carrying over to the new Blu-ray. Is that correct?

Miguel Casillas: Absolutely. And we worked very closely with James and Zoetrope to produce the features. This is really kind of their 'container' if you will. We're just trying to help bring Francis' vision to light. But that was basically the idea – that for the ultimate fan, this is probably as close as you can get to owning a piece of the film, with all of the mythology and lore, in one box set. We're really proud of that. We think it's a really cool effort, and we couldn't have done it without Zoetrope. Hopefully, when you see it you'll agree. The great thing about it is that the way it's put together and indexed is a very elegant menu system. It's a very nice approach – it's easy for the fans to get through and find the bits they want. And hopefully this is a box set that you can't go through in the first night. There's just a lot of content that's on there.

Bill Hunt: Well, two versions of the film, Coppola's commentary, the documentary, all the previous Dossier features... plus new content?

Miguel Casillas: Yes!

Bill Hunt: That's definitely a lot of material. Let's talk about that new content. What's specifically new here? What's going to surprise fans that they may not have known about before?

James Mockoski: We have Francis interviewing Martin Sheen. And also we have Francis interviewing John Milius. Francis has always gotten credit for writing the film, but he wanted to give John more credit because actually the inspiration came from John and George Lucas. So he wanted to be more public about that. He wanted John, in his own words, to speak on the inspiration and how he came to develop Apocalypse Now.

Bill Hunt: Looking at the list, there's also the Coppola interview by Roger Ebert from Cannes in 2001?

James Mockoski: Yeah, there was a little bit of it on one of the extras from '06, but this is the complete interview.

Bill Hunt: And there's a new casting featurette...

James Mockoski: Which has Fred Roos talking about his experiences with Francis to cast the film back in 1976, so we have a lot of rehearsal footage from a month before they go on to film.

Bill Hunt: Wow. And I understand there's a Mercury Theatre radio drama with Orson Welles as well?

James Mockoski: Yes. Lionsgate dug up a recording of that from 1938...

Miguel Casillas: It features Welles. It's a reading of Joseph Conrad's Hearts of Darkness, which was part of the inspiration for Apocalypse Now. It's very archival, but I think for any über-fan it's a cool experience.

Bill Hunt: I understand also that there are storyboard, photograph and marketing archives. Galleries, I assume – can you talk about them?

Miguel Casillas: Basically we worked with James and his team to dig up just a lot of the old cool posters and lobby cards, images of the script with Francis' own notes – an excerpt from the shooting script. Just basically all of the experience stuff that fans love. We even transferred the original trailers in HD. What can I tell you? I love trailers. And I don't think anyone has seen some of that before.

Bill Hunt: I just love the idea that the trailers are HD. Those are usually an afterthought on most releases – especially on Blu-rays.

Miguel Casillas: Yes. What we tried to include is really the history of the film as it related to American and world cinema. You just can't leave out the whole marketing and promotion of the film, because there was a very certain elegance and beautiful style to it – to some of the posters and materials, and just how things were done back then, before the MTV and Internet generations came along. It was important to us to kind of capture that and offer that for fans to experience and understand. And another great thing that I'm happy about on the disc is, with one of our partners, MetaBeam, there's an application that you'll be able to download for free from the Apple store, so that if you have an Apple product – an iPad or iPhone - you'll be able to actually experience that marketing gallery in more detail on your device.

Bill Hunt: That's actually a very clever use of that kind of advanced connectivity – to be able to view such still images in greater detail.

Miguel Casillas: Right. Because as beautiful as these things will look on the Blu-ray, a TV screen just isn't meant to really display images like that. It's such a 5-foot experience. We wanted to offer people a chance to really look at these things and really appreciate them in a more handheld way – a more intimate experience if you will.

Bill Hunt: Speaking of that, the film was originally presented – the 70mm screenings at least – in a "roadshow" format, without credits. And those were included in a pressbook at the screenings...

James Mockoski: Yes. Jay may actually remember how that was done. As I understand it, they gave out the program at the 70mm screenings, but when they went to 35mm general release, it wasn't economically feasible to give out the programs, so they added the credits.

Jay Miracle: That's true. They had a pamphlet. I actually still have a few copies. I thought it was quite brilliant. It was quite an experience – I went to a lot of the original screenings, having worked on the movie. It's why I'm very excited to see this new version. Hearing you guys talking about all this, I'm just sitting here thinking, "Wow!" (laughs)

James Mockoski: Jay you were originally part of Eleanor's crew?

Jay Miracle: I was actually a sound editor. And I was sort of based at Zoetrope for about 4 or 5 years. I was a kid – I was going to Berkeley at the time. And I was very involved at Zoetrope. It was really a great experience for me. So this is very exciting! There's just so much incredible material that's available out there for this film, that I don't think anyone has seen, at least not for a long time. And it really was an amazing marketing coup at the time. I remember when they had the first screening at the Cinerama Dome, and a lot of the preview screenings. There was a lot of excitement. But there's just so many aspects to this story – the story of the film – and it'll be great to see it.

Bill Hunt: It's always interesting, especially on a film of this scale, just how much material gets collected and created – how much goes into the production – that most fans never get to see.

Jay Miracle: Right, a tremendous amount of work, a tremendous amount of documentation. We looked at a lot of Vietnam War materials, things of that nature.

James Mockoski: It's funny that you bring that up, because I just came across some of those old 16mm prints from the Navy – archival footage of PBR boats going up the river.

Jay Miracle: Yeah, a lot of that provided inspiration. Even the bit with the soldier with the puppy – all those kinds of things.

Bill Hunt: I know that the new Blu-ray also has a 48-page book included in the package – I would assume that some of that archival print and photo-based material will be included there?

James Mockoski: The original pressbook material is in the marketing gallery on the disc. But Francis came up with his own book of how he wanted some of the documents related to the filming experience to be presented, with his own notes – a lot of the letters from the set, release memos to the crew in the Philippines. So you get a good raw look at what it took to live in the Philippines during the filming. This was what – 2... 2 1/2 years? Families had to move there. And it must have been hard for them. A lot of this experience gets overlooked. But there was a whole personal aspect to making this film for the people who actually had to live there. So we tried to give a little bit of that kind of flavor in the book.

Bill Hunt: In terms of specific extras that our readers have asked about on the Blu-ray, is the "Destruction of the Kurtz Compound" footage included with Coppola's commentary?

James Mockoski: Yes, it's on the new release and it's transferred in HD. And there's the additional deleted footage in SD.

Comparison of the 2001 I.P. (top) and 2010 Blu-ray master (bottom).

Bill Hunt: And the preexisting documentary commentary from the Hearts of Darkness DVD, with Eleanor and Francis – that carries over as well?

James Mockoski: Yes. Everything that was on the DVDs from '06, that's on the Blu-ray as well.

Bill Hunt: My one last question is, now that Lionsgate has partnered with Zoetrope to release the Zoetrope catalog of films on DVD and Blu-ray, what might be next in terms of titles to expect?

Miguel Casillas: I think if you look at the trailer gallery on the Blu-ray, Bill, you might see a clue of what's coming up next...

Bill Hunt: Ah! Perfect – something else for Coppola fans to look forward to! Well, I'd say that's a good place to wrap up. Thanks to all of you for your time, guys. I know I certainly can't wait to get my hands on the Blu-ray, and I think a lot of other people will feel the same way when they read this.

Miguel Casillas: I would just close by saying that I think fans are going to be really, really pleased with this release. I know we're all very proud of it. Zoetrope did an amazing job in producing and securing all of the elements, in the mastering. Just going back to the real star of the box set, which are the films themselves – they look fantastic.

It's no exaggeration to say that Richard Donner is one of the most influential filmmakers of the past thirty years. For all intents and purposes, he single-handedly invented the modern superhero movie with 1978's Superman. In 1987, he reinvigorated the buddy movie formula with Lethal Weapon, spawning three sequels and countless imitators. But like any filmmaker, there have been some disappointments along the way, both critical and commercial. Perhaps the biggest was the failure of Inside Moves, a low-key character study, to find an audience upon its release in 1980. The film garnered critical praise and an Academy Award nomination for Diana Scarwid in the Best Supporting Actress category. But an ineptly managed theatrical release all but insured that no one would ever see it. After its release on VHS in the early 80s, Inside Moves promptly vanished into obscurity.

Inside Moves has been given a second chance thanks to Lionsgate's new release of the film on DVD (you can read my full review of the disc here), and no one could be happier about that than Dick Donner. I recently chatted with the legendary filmmaker about his least-seen picture, some of his other personal favorites amongst his work, the future of the Lethal Weapon series, and more. In conversation, Donner is candid, forthcoming and genuinely warm and friendly, peppering his responses to my questions with "pal" and "buddy". Within five minutes, this became one of my favorite interviews that I've done for The Bits. Enjoy!

- Dr. Adam Jahnke

--

Adam Jahnke: What took so long for Inside Moves to come to DVD?

Richard Donner: Well, it was independently made and distributed by a company called PSO and Lord Lew Grade's company in England (ITC). And they did about the worst job of distribution of any film I've ever been involved in. Maybe with the exception of the stupidity of how 16 Blocks was handled by Alcon and Warner Bros. I'm serious, they took 16 Blocks and put me out on a Friday against Dave Chappelle (Block Party) and the star of Dave Chappelle's show was Mos Def. Who was the co-star of mine! They put us out on the same Friday night and that Sunday was the Academy Awards. You think about it. Anyway, it was about the same thing with these other guys. So after (Inside Moves) came out and got great reviews, they put us out around Christmas. Around Academy Award time, so every major studio had every theater. They found one little theater in Westwood for me and the picture "el died-o". So of course since it was independent, it got sold a piece here, a piece there and was just laying in a vault somewhere. Nobody did anything about it. Until this wonderful couple, Cliff and Lisa Stephenson... she's with Lionsgate. She dug it up, put it back together again. Her husband Cliff worked on the DVD. If it weren't for them, it would still be laying there. And I'm sure there are lots of other wonderful films like mine, which I love desperately, laying in vaults where nobody will ever see them until Cliff and Lisa come along and save them.

AJ: They certainly did an excellent job rescuing this one.

RD: Didn't they? I'm telling you... and not only that, they save dogs, too! So they save both.

AJ: But the movie was indeed nominated for an Academy Award, correct?

RD: Yes, (Diana Scarwid) was nominated for an Academy Award. And that was with having it not seen in this town! This town of Holl-E-Wood! I mean, it was a little theater on... do you live here?

AJ: Yes I do.

RD: It was on the south side of Wilshire, a little Westwood theater, I forget the name of it. (Note: For those who don't live here, Westwood is by the UCLA campus and is home to a number of famous, historic movie theaters. Most, however, are on the north side of Wilshire Boulevard. Most south of Wilshire have closed up with the exception of the Crest. - Tour Guide Jahnke) There were practically no ads, no nothing. And it still got her an Academy nomination.

AJ: Like you mentioned, this was completely an independent film.

RD: Yes, it was put together by Bob Goodwin and Mark Tanz, who raised the money because they loved the script. It's just that we got taken down a long road when it came to distribution.

AJ: I was curious why you haven't made more independent films and have instead worked primarily within the studio system.

RD: 'Cause it's a bitch! It really is! I mean, you run into the same problems all the time. You get a rarity like Slumdog Millionaire or something but most of the time... well, the independents have really come up now because the studios are so insecure about taking chances on anything new or different. If you go to a studio now, it's gotta be a book, a comic book or a remake. The independents at least have some balls and will try some new project. And you get good support, the finance and everything with it. Up until recently, it was really tough with an independent. Now, I think I'd rather be with an independent.

AJ: Do you think it would be easier to get this movie made today than it was then?

RD: Probably the same. Yeah, sure if I got Brad Pitt to play the guy with the bad leg and if I got... well, you name one... sure, I could go and get it made. Or if you just went out and made it with relatively unsung heroes. John Savage was a phenomenal actor at that point but he wasn't a bankable actor. I mean, he was an actor who was nominated for an Oscar for The Deer Hunter. So he was a solid actor but he wasn't the kind of guy you could raise money on. It would be the same thing today unless you found some small outfit that just believed so much in the project and they said, "Y'know what? We trust and believe so much in the project, let's go." It's a rarity.

AJ: Now you had wanted to make Inside Moves even before you made Superman.

RD: Yes, I had read the novel by Todd Walton and I loved it and wanted to make it. Then Superman came into my life and that took years away from me. I came back and a very wonderful agent named Everett Ziegler said, "I have a script for you to read." I started to read it and when the character Savage plays attempted suicide, I went, "Oh my God, it's that book." Valerie Curtin and Barry Levinson had written it for Paramount. Bob Evans had tried to make it. And he couldn't make it! If Bob Evans can't make it... he WAS Paramount. Our business is so cyclical. When you run into the area of where they're afraid of somebody who's got some depth, you're in trouble.

AJ: Since you had read it originally as a novel, was the final movie pretty much what you intended to make back then or did that change when Valerie Curtin and Barry Levinson's script came into it?

RD: It was far better. I mean, they were and are two brilliant, talented, creative people and they had written a brilliant, great script. They had captured every nuance in that piece. There was just one exception. When I made the movie, my original intentions were to stay with the novel and Barry and Valerie's script. But it ended on a very... I would say, almost down note. If you ever read the book, you'll see it ends on the hooker (played in the movie by Amy Wright), who at that point has become a totally addicted hooker. And she has these lines about how life is as it was and there's no glory in it. There's no up sides. By the time we were getting near that point, I'm thinking something's wrong. Because my mission in life is kind of like... there's one critic who said, "It's the kind of picture that makes you feel good and that ain't bad." And that's what I like. I like to come out of a picture feeling good, feeling kind of warm inside. It's been my mission ever since. I don't like to be depressed. I don't like to pay for it. I don't like to go see movies where the heroine commits suicide. So when we were getting near the end, I thought I've got to add a scene. So I went to Barry and Valerie and they said, "No, no, no. Todd didn't want that." I went, "Look, I just want this picture to have a completion. And these guys from Max's Bar deserve their moment in the sun. All of them. So I'll write it." And they went, "OK, we will. We'll write it if you're threatening to write it." And they came up with that wonderful scene. Sure, it's a payoff scene. But it's something warm and wonderful and those who deserve it got their comeuppance. In those days, in that period, there were a lot of depressing films being made. And I just don't like to be one of them.

AJ: It's interesting because the scene does work as a payoff but it doesn't feel like it's out of keeping with everything that's come before it.

RD: That's great! For me, that's the way it works. I really feel good when Savage's character Roary trips the heavy, Tony Burton... wonderful actor... and he goes down the steps and the group looks at Roary. And he's got this wonderful look on his face. They say, "Roary, what did you do?" And the pride in all of them that nobody messes with the people at Max's Bar. That's our home. That's our happiness. It just worked so well for me. I think it worked well for the film. For years, I've gotten, "Hey, Roary! Hey, Jerry!"

AJ: That sort of ties in with another question I had. On the DVD, Todd Walton mentions bringing the film to a screening of primarily handicapped people and being surprised that they'd all seen it and loved it and it was a really important movie to them. Has that been your experience too, over the years?

RD: Well, you know, I think we're all handicapped. Emotions, physical, mental, everybody's carrying some kind of a problem around with them. I think if you just said it was a picture for the handicapped, it'd be a major mistake. Handicapped is an all-encompassing word. I have had so many people comment on the film over the years. There was a picture I did called Radio Flyer. And I used to get these comments from people saying, "You know, I've never told anybody this but I was abused like that when I was a kid." So when things like that happen and emotions are called up in people in a picture like this, it's not just a picture for handicapped people. It's for people, period.

AJ: It ties in to that great line David Morse has when he goes back to the bar and says, "I'm the only cripple here."

RD: Yes! Yeah, it's a great line. And what a difficult scene for an actor to do. He did that brilliantly. I'll never forget that. He is a sensational actor as well as a great person.

AJ: Speaking of the cast, whose idea was it to persuade Harold Russell to come back for this? (Note: Russell, a World War II veteran whose hands were replaced with a pair of prosthetic hooks, had won two Oscars for his role in The Best Years of Our Lives in 1946 and had not appeared in another film until Inside Moves in 1980. - Film Historian Jahnke)

RD: Well, the minute I read the script, who else would you want to play that role but a man like that, who won two Academy Awards for the same performance? He was just perfect for it. So I found him. He was in Washington, D.C., I think, working for the Veterans' Administration. We discussed it and he said, "No thanks, I'm not acting. I was only an actor once. I don't want to be an actor." I said, "Well, I have the script. Would you read it?" He said, "Well certainly, I'll read it." So I sent it to him and in the original script, the character was called Hooks. And I got a call from him. He said, "I read your script." I said, "Well, I hope you enjoyed it." He said, "Yes, I enjoyed it and I would like to do it but would you change the name from Hooks to Wings?" I said, "Oh my God... yeah, instantly." He's brilliant. He's gone now.

AJ: What was it like for him stepping in front of a camera for the first time in over thirty years?

RD: None of them are in front of a camera. That was the most familial group of actors I've ever worked with in my life. Max's Bar was built on a street in Echo Park from a garage. You actually walked into a bar. And that bar became the home for all of us, crew and cast. Those people aren't acting. When Stinky says, "Don't be stupid. First you get handicapped. Then you try suicide," and they laughed at it? That was them. That was so real. In that scene, two of the actors were physically handicapped. Bert Remsen (who plays Stinky) was a casting director and a crane on a set toppled and crushed him. He was badly hurt for the rest of his life. And everybody else fell into it. It wasn't acting. I must say I deserve no credit for that film. They all brought it to life on their own.

AJ: That familial feeling you're talking about really comes through in the party scene at the bar on Christmas.

RD: Yeah, I love that. And who better than Sinatra, huh?

AJ: Yeah, that was a perfect choice. You had worked pretty extensively in television before making The Omen. I was wondering if that helped in making something as intimate as Inside Moves?

RD: Well, working in TV helped me in everything. It helped me to know where my energy should go and what you should do, both physical and mental energies, and where you're going to put your camera. So remember I read that book right after The Omen. And I saw that movie (in my head) then. I think anything you do in the industry, whether you make commercials, documentaries, half-hour TV comedies, dramatics, it helps form how you'll work with other people on any movie you do. So yeah, to answer your question in a very roundabout way, yes it did. (laughs)

AJ: Are there any other movies you've made that you'd like to see rediscovered or reevaluated the same way Inside Moves now hopefully will be?

RD: Two of them. I wish there was more play on Ladyhawke, which I love. It's a beautiful, unrequited, true love story. I love it. And one of the most important for me is Radio Flyer. Because of child abuse, the way it was handled and the way it was acted and the way it was brought to life and the way it forced you into your own conclusions. Its subjectivity. I wish that picture had more play and was out again. But that's show biz!

AJ: I'd agree with you on those. The other one I'd mention is Scrooged, which I always thought got kind of overshadowed by Groundhog Day.

RD: (laughs) You know, it still plays every Christmas. You're right. That was a fun picture. It was great. Bill (Murray) was wonderful. The script was amazing. We're so lucky doing what we do. That shoot was memorable to me too and the end result was great. You know, at the very end of it, it's kind of like Slumdog Millionaire. When they start to sing "Put a Little Love in Your Heart". We started to pull back a little bit, just to get in the cast. Then all of a sudden I kept pushing the camera back and back and back, and everybody came in! The crew, everybody that made that movie practically is in that shot in the end with everybody singing "Put A Little Love in Your Heart". And it was true. You didn't have to push them. Everybody had a lot of love in their hearts making that film.

AJ: That's similar to the way you end Inside Moves, with the crew photo underneath the end credits.

RD: Yeah. And I did that on the last Lethal Weapon, too. I had everybody from every single department get photographed. Either bring photographs in or we shot photographs of them. And as the credits roll, there's pictures of everybody. So the unsungs, the people that nobody ever sees, everybody saw their face.

AJ: Would you ever want to make another movie as small and intimate as Inside Moves again?

RD: Sure, if it comes along. If it's right. If it's the perfect script to do, yeah. Without a second's hesitation. But they're tough to find. And they're tough to finance. But if you really believe in them and you just stay with it, it'll happen. Yes. Sure, without a second's hesitation, I'd jump on it.

AJ: You can tell just by talking to you that Inside Moves was an important movie to you.

RD: Very. Very, very, very. And as I said, it's a feel-good movie.

AJ: As somebody who essentially created the modern superhero movie, what's your take on the current popularity of superhero movies?

RD: I think they're great. I think they're really great, the way they're handled today. I have kind of an expert, he's 13 or 14, named Tommy Wenk. He's a young guy, reads all the comics, keeps up on everything, and he tells me. This would make a great movie. That is a great movie. Go see this one, you'll love it. Tommy Wenk is like the decision for me, whether we should go and see a super-movie of today. I think they're pretty damn good, in general. We call it The Tommy Wenk Critique. He makes our decisions for us. He's the audience!

AJ: There have been rumors for awhile about you reteaming with Mel Gibson, either on Lethal Weapon 5 or a movie called Sam and George or something else.

RD: Well, Sam and George is dead. That was at Paramount. That's not happening. But hopefully I'm doing another picture with Mel, probably next year. Maybe prepare it in the fall of this year. But I don't think Lethal's gonna happen. I think it could. I think we have a great story for it. I think one of the other producers who I allowed on the picture may have screwed it up by trying to push me out and that offended Mel. It just got stupid. It became really Hollywood. It became the low end of what Hollywood is. Quite despicable. But Channing Gibson, who's a great writer and wrote Lethal 4, has a great story for both Mel and Danny (Glover) for a fifth one. It's charming. It's a little bit of the original. It ends the way they should end because it's kind of a little bit of a reversion on what it was. It's a good story and maybe, who knows? Maybe after I work with Mel on this one, maybe I can talk him into it. But only time will tell.

AJ: Somebody just glancing at your filmography might think that Inside Moves is an atypical movie for you. How would you counter that?

RD: Well, is Radio Flyer atypical? It's not. There's nothing typical or atypical for me. You read something or you develop something and you want to see it on screen and it becomes the film. It just seems to me that I did those, they were very difficult, very hard to sell, you still keep making them whenever you can and something else comes along. Until those Lethals came along, I had never done an action film. There was always gratuitous bullshit. This one, written brilliantly by Shane Black, had a reason. It had brilliant characters, great development, great evolution of them, and there was a reason the action evolved out of the situation that the characters were in that you cared about. So I wanted to make it. Maybe that's become typical for me, I don't know. I just love making movies, period.

---

Certainly that love is readily apparent in any given Richard Donner picture. Be sure to check out my review of Inside Moves on DVD here. Thanks to Cliff Stephenson at Off the Cliff Productions and Derek Hoffman at The Donners' Company for their help in setting up this interview and special thanks to Dick Donner himself for taking the time to chat with us.